tv [untitled] February 16, 2011 11:00pm-11:30pm PST
>> while the commission was in closed session, we distributed on each of the specifications -- deliberated on ian: of the specification and voted as follows. with respect to specification number one, the video titled i am not a doggings specification was sustained 5-0. specification number two, steaped 5-0. specification number three. eight videos involved. sustained 5-0. specification number four, there were two videos involved. sustained 5-0. specification number five, there were six videos involved, not sustained. two votes. in favor, sustained, three votes opposed. so we'll now move into the penalty phase with respect to
the specifications that were sustained. i'm sorry. it is getting late. i can't remember how -- who went first last time. i think we ought to have the department -- five minutes. >> the issues here with respect to penalty are very similar to the issues that you saw in previous case with officer -- one of the things a makes officer lewis' case distinguishable from hers which justifies a higher penalty in his case is he has been with the department much longer. she had been the department only 10. there is an argument to be made that he had a relationship with officer cohen that put him at more distance. she was engaged to cohen. lewis was just an old friend so there are a lot of reasons to believe that officer lewis should vfed more impaschality,
to behave in a manner that reflected good judgment. that said, his behavior shows worst judgment than hurley's case. he is involved in a greater number of videos. he comes it with more material himself and his cutting in those videos is more outrageous than what that that you see with respect to hurley. particularly on the nine videos. to really -- it is really very over the top material. over the course of a year and a half, he thought this was great fun. there is no indication at any point he thought this was a bad idea. it is clear he thought this was going to be a retirement party. he thinks he has done nothing wrong. in that regard, i think because his conduct is more severe than hurley in the videos, his penalty should be higher. than hers.
in particular, i think one of the things that you need to take it is the way in which -- take into account is the way in which he chose to take things that happened in the videos and put them up to an even higher level and make them more outrageous than previously done. he puts on a dress for the charlie's angel video. he goes to the great lengths of licking the camera. the watermelon scene, he didn't know that was about to be scene. he makes the joke about the water melon being straight from the white people even though he is the one being insulted from the african-americans using this watermelon reference. so he chooses to make the behavior more outrageous than what was originally planned. for all of those reasons we believed that in officer lewis' case the penalty ought to be
termination. he may have had a good record prior in his career. now he has clearly indicated he is no longer exercises the good judgment we expect in an officer. he doesn't have the ability to -- work with our diverse community or frankly that at this point he associates with people that are going to help him get back on track. you're going to hear the same thing here about officer lewis. i think that is a problem. that is a real problem. it shows he doesn't have the support network he needs to bring his behavior into compliance. he is going to be told by the people closest to him that he did nothing wrong and shouldn't be sorry for what he did and that means he will never be a good officer again. that's why you should terminate him. i would like to reserve the last minute and a half for rebuttal.
>> it is interesting how he goes on how the penalty should be harsher fer officer lewis but he never refers to -- guideline and that is what this chigs should do. look at the guidelines set forth by the commission. all of these specifications, class d of the conduct. you will see the class c is misconduct. you cannot add -- add upon add upon any allegation of specifications when this is a first offense. officer lewis, in fact, you look at class d sks failure to vote entire time and attention to the sufficient performance of police business while on duty. the first soffs a written warning. for -- offense is a written warning. for failure to treat others with respect, the first soffs a written warning. it is not a termination. it is not days off. it is not suspension.
you set up the guidelines. you're turned guidelines and you should use them. -- under the guidelines. he has been on the force for 27 years. since 1982. he has had no discipline. never been suspended and never been off one day of work. he worked in the bayview station. which is a hard station to work. he was transfered. he was -- he was suspended then transfered. suspended illegally. taken off the street and given a desk job which the public is paying for when he should be out on the street fight fighting crime. they took pay from him in december 2005 and put his image and displayed the image on public tv. chief fong did that and mayor newsome. they called him racist and homophobic. there is no evidence to support any of that. that was displayed and his
reputation was out there on the line. and his faculty -- precludes the city from doing that. placing police officer images on display. he has received two bronze medals of valor. accommodations. he has a long history of undercover work. now his first offer that they gave him was a letter of reprimand and they want him to do a video. this is what the city offered him initially. what has changed? nothing has changed. he hasn't been involved in any other misconduct. he has been in the records room five long years. off the streets. he is not able to do the overtime that he used to do and it has stagnated his ability to be promoted in the department. how harsh is that? then the chief offered him 15 days suspension. this is the offer they made him just recently while we were conducting the trial.
then 10 days. not only with officer hurley and lewis, now with officer lewis, you want to make an example of these fine officers because they stood up for their rights. because they fought the system. the system, which is fragmented. it is not working like it should work. and so he has been in this whole process for five years. you shouldn't discipline an officer because of the process. and the commission, no matter how much money the city has spent on this case, should have the guts to admit when the administration is wrong and the fong administration was wrong. so i hope you look at the guidelines. i hope you follow the guidelines
harm the promulgated because the class c misconduct, you can't add more discipline and more penalty when this is a first offense. i have nothing further. >> thank you. >> can i question -- >> certainly. >> respond briefly, please. your best recollection of the offer made by the department since mr. mccoy brought it up and secondly, how about the class d violation or guidelines? >> it is remarkable that he is arguing about what the guidelines are. he didn't give you a written argument about what he thought. >> please respond to his question. >> i am. part of the problem is it is 11th hour argument. we have laid out in our paper why it is not a class d violation.
it merits termination. >> he brought it up. what were the department's offers? >> we had a variety of offers. i would assume offers like that wouldn't beed a admissible. >> what are they? >> since you ask, one of the reasons the offers fell apart, he was asking for a written guarantee he would be assigned to a -- everyone thought that it was outrageous that he demand he get a plum assignment. that i think is problematic. that is part of the reason for a viret of different conversations we had about -- variety of different conversations we had with him about settlement fell through. that's why he is no longer suitable to work here. i think it is also important to note that officer lewis had the ability to explain to you his
behavior by testifying in hearing. he chose not to. he had the opportunity to maybe give you a written letter or something explaining his behavior and why he engaged in it and n part of the penalty proceedings. he chose not to. he is basically telling you he doesn't have to explain what he did. he doesn't feel that he needs to give you any explanation and that i think is very disturbing. at least officer hurley got up there and tried to explain what was going on. this officer doesn't think he owes you that and that's why i think he shouldn't work here anymore. >> one minute. >> first of all, it is kind of confusing to me there mr. aleden does not remember what the offers were. the offers were 10 days time off. the first prior offer was 15 days suspension. now he did accept a deal.
he couldn't deal with him. we were doing with someone who works for the city attorney. there is a signed copy of the settlement agreement which gives him 10 days off, that was not -- it was a written reprimand. no time off. and the video. with the apology. it was not accepted by the chief. so the honda unit issue was something that was being negotiated but at the end of the day, officer lewis did sign for a letter of reprimand, which everyone else got. >> thank you. >> based on the penalty that was administrated to officer hurley,
i only ask that the commission administrate a penalty that was consistent with the allegations that are in front of us. not asking for termination. >> all right. >> not asking for termination. >> thank you. >> i move we go to closed session to consider penalty. >> closed session. thank you, everybody.
>> we are back in open session on item number 11. >> thank you, everybody. it has been a long evening. while we were in closed session, the commission deliberated about penalty for each of the sustained specifications with respect to officer lewis and voted unanimously to impose 90 day suspension per specification for a total of 360 days to be imposed effective immediately without pay. i'll take a motion with respect to whether we disclose the content of our deliberations. >> second. >> any objection? >> no objections.